Landmark Judgments On Dying Declarations
1. Kehar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (1988) — Reliability of Dying Declaration
Facts:
In the assassination case of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the reliability of dying declarations was central to the prosecution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court observed that a dying declaration is a very important piece of evidence but must be scrutinized carefully. It should be made voluntarily and be consistent with other evidence. The Court reiterated that the declarant’s fear of death and solemn state of mind lends credibility to the statement.
Key Takeaway:
Dying declarations are admissible and often given great weight but must be voluntary and reliable.
2. Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) — Dying Declaration as Sole Basis for Conviction
Facts:
The accused challenged conviction based solely on the victim’s dying declaration.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is truthful, clear, and reliable. Corroboration is not mandatory but helps strengthen the prosecution’s case.
Key Takeaway:
A clear and credible dying declaration alone can sustain a conviction without corroboration.
3. R vs. Bedingfield (1879) — Foundation for Indian Law
Though an English case, it has been widely cited in India.
Facts:
The case laid down the principle that a dying declaration should be made without prompting and must refer to the cause of death.
Judgment:
The Court held that dying declarations are admissible because the declarant is under a sense of impending death and unlikely to lie.
Key Takeaway:
The principle that dying declarations enjoy a special status in evidence law.
4. State of U.P. vs. Rajesh Gautam (2003) — Consistency and Spontaneity of Dying Declaration
Facts:
The accused argued that the dying declaration was influenced and inconsistent.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of spontaneity in dying declarations. It stated that minor contradictions do not necessarily discredit a dying declaration if the overall statement is consistent and trustworthy.
Key Takeaway:
Spontaneity and overall reliability are more important than minor discrepancies.
5. Ramphal vs. State of Haryana (1976) — Recording of Dying Declaration
Facts:
The procedural aspects of recording dying declarations were challenged.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that a dying declaration should be recorded by a magistrate or a police officer in a clear and careful manner. The person recording must ask precise questions and ensure that the statement is voluntary.
Key Takeaway:
Proper recording procedures are essential to uphold the evidentiary value of a dying declaration.
Summary of Key Legal Principles on Dying Declarations:
Dying declarations are admissible as exception to hearsay rule.
They are given high evidentiary value but must be voluntary and reliable.
They can be the sole basis for conviction if credible.
Minor contradictions do not necessarily invalidate a dying declaration.
Proper recording procedure is crucial for the declaration’s acceptance.
The declarant’s mental state and fear of impending death add weight to their truthfulness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments